Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Extreme mass ratio inspirals in rotating dark matter spikes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Spinning black holes make dark matter spikes easier for LISA to detect, and future EMRI parameter estimation must include them.

desk verdict First rotating-spike EMRI study with Teukolsky fluxes; useful and mostly sound, but the spin-enhancement claim rests on an isotropic DF model that the toroidal spike calls into question. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04697 v2 pith:XESJHZTC submitted 2025-05-07 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Soumodeep Mitra , Nicholas Speeney , Sumanta Chakraborty , Emanuele Berti This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords extrememassratioinspiralsdarkmatterspikesdynamicalfrictionKerrblackholesLISAgravitationalwavedephasingwaveformmismatchsignal-to-noise
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that when the central black hole spins, the dark matter spike around it is compressed and densified near the equator, and this rotating environment leaves a stronger imprint on extreme mass ratio inspiral waveforms than a non-rotating spike. The central claim is that the spin of the primary black hole improves the chances that LISA will detect dark matter spikes, and that any parameter-estimation study of EMRIs must include the rotating spike or risk biased results. The support comes from dephasing, mismatch, and signal-to-noise calculations for prograde and retrograde orbits around Kerr black holes of $10^5$–$10^6\,M_\odot$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rotating dark matter spike: a toroidal density distribution obtained by adiabatically growing a Kerr black hole inside a Hernquist halo, with particles conserving their action integrals during the growth. The argument runs through this density profile—parametrized by the fitting formula and scaling relations in Eq. (9) and Eq. (10)—which feeds the Chandrasekhar dynamical friction force of Eq. (12). That force is added to fully relativistic Teukolsky-based gravitational-wave fluxes in an energy and angular-momentum balance evolution (Eqs. (11) and (15)), and the resulting waveforms are compared to vacuum waveforms through dephasing, mismatch, and SNR.

What would settle it

Numerically simulate a small black hole moving through the rotating spike and measure the drag component perpendicular to its velocity. If that perpendicular component is a significant fraction of the parallel drag, the torque balance used in the paper is incomplete and the prograde-versus-retrograde dephasing hierarchy would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that rotation changes the dark matter environment itself, not just the orbit: higher spin produces a denser, more centrally concentrated equatorial spike, so the dynamical friction drag on the secondary grows. In inspirals followed all the way to the ISCO, prograde orbits experience larger environmental dephasing because their ISCO is closer to the black hole, letting them accumulate more cycles in the dense inner spike; retrograde orbits, by contrast, reach higher SNR earlier in fixed-time observations. The mismatch between vacuum and dark-matter waveforms exceeds the standard $0.03$ distinguishability threshold for a wider range of halo parameters when spin is included, and this is taken as evidence that LISA detection prospects improve and that rotation must be included in future parameter estimation.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the drag force is always opposite to the secondary's velocity and has the size given by the standard Chandrasekhar formula with $\ln\Lambda\sim3$, evaluated on the equatorial spike density; if the rotating spike produces a sideways drag or a different effective Coulomb logarithm, the spin-dependent dephasing results would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LISA parameter-estimation studies that approximate the environment with a static, spherical spike will produce biased estimates of the black hole spin and environment parameters, because rotation changes both the density profile and the orbital evolution.
  • High-spin, prograde EMRIs are the best targets for detecting dark matter spikes, while retrograde inspirals can become louder sooner in fixed-time observations.
  • The probe-limit approximation—ignoring the spike's back-reaction on the metric—is safe for primary masses below about $10^7\,M_\odot$, so the main dephasing and mismatch results are not contaminated by metric changes for the systems considered.
  • Including spin lowers the halo mass or increases the scale radius at which a dark matter environment becomes distinguishable from vacuum, so LISA could probe more diffuse halos than non-rotating models suggested.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the gravitational Magnus effect—the non-aligned component of dynamical friction—is non-negligible in the toroidal, anisotropic spike, the torque balance and the prograde/retrograde dephasing hierarchy would shift; the authors explicitly leave this to future work.
  • A direct testable extension is a full Bayesian parameter-estimation study that injects rotating-spike waveforms and recovers with vacuum and non-rotating templates; the expected outcome is a measurable bias in spin and environment parameters.
  • The prograde/retrograde asymmetry is driven mostly by the ISCO radius, so systems with the highest spins and small secondary masses should show the strongest environmental mismatch; scanning that grid would sharpen the detectability map.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models extreme mass ratio inspirals in a rotating dark matter spike around a Kerr black hole. It uses the Ferrer et al. relativistic spike profile, fitted by the polynomial scaling relation in Eq. (10), and incorporates dynamical friction through the isotropic Chandrasekhar formula, Eq. (12), into the FEW trajectory and waveform code with Teukolsky fluxes. The authors compute dephasing, mismatch, and SNR for varying spin, halo mass, and scale radius, and also give a 1PN estimate of the metric backreaction from the spike, concluding that the spin of the primary enhances the detectability of DM effects with LISA and that the backreaction is negligible for primary masses ≲ 10^7 Msun.

Significance. If the central claim holds, LISA parameter estimation for EMRIs must account for rotating DM environments, and this work provides one of the first fully relativistic treatments of the spike geometry combined with Teukolsky fluxes. The forward-model structure is a strength: the spike profile and DF formula are external inputs and the dephasing, mismatch, and SNR are outputs, so there is no circularity in the main computation. The paper also gives explicit validity bounds from halo feedback and from the probe-limit approximation, which is commendable. However, the absence of the fit coefficients and code limits reproducibility, and the spin-dependence of the standard DF model is a load-bearing assumption that needs quantitative scrutiny.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eq. (12)] The dynamical friction force is modeled with the isotropic Chandrasekhar formula, with the force anti-parallel to the secondary's velocity, ln Lambda ~ 3, and the density evaluated on the equatorial plane. The Ferrer et al. spike [51] is toroidal and its phase-space distribution carries a net rotational velocity, so the relative velocity v - v_DM should enter the drag, and a non-aligned component (the gravitational Magnus effect) may also exist. Because the spin-dependence of the dephasing and mismatch is the central result of the paper, the authors should estimate the magnitude of the correction from using the relative velocity, for example by computing the bulk velocity of the spike, or explicitly soften the claim that the spin of the primary improves detection prospects. The acknowledgment in Section III that the Magnus effect is deferred does not address the aligned relative-velocity correction, which changes the torque even for equatorial circular orbits.
  2. [II, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The spike density used in all subsequent results is a polynomial fit whose coefficients A_i, B_j and orders n, m are not given, and no code or data release is mentioned. Since the dephasing, mismatch, and SNR results scale with the spike density, the quantitative claims are not reproducible without these coefficients or a supplementary data file. Please include a table of the fit coefficients for each spin value and state the fitting range and error as a function of radius, or make the fitting code available.
  3. [V, Figs. 8-9] The paper uses both SNR and mismatch to discuss observability, but these measure different things: SNR in Fig. 8 is the loudness of the non-vacuum waveform, not the distinguishability of the DM effect, while mismatch in Figs. 9-11 is the appropriate detectability criterion. The apparent tension that retrograde orbits reach SNR = 20 earlier but have lower mismatch than prograde orbits should be addressed explicitly in the text, so that readers do not infer that SNR supports the 'high-spin prograde optimal' conclusion, which is based on mismatch.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II, Eq. (10)] Please define r_pk in the fitting function and clarify whether the Heaviside function H(r - r_mb) creates a discontinuity at the matching point; also report the fitting error as a function of radius rather than only the global 0.1% claim.
  2. [III, Eq. (13) and surrounding text] The abbreviation 'AAK' is used without definition; please spell out 'Augmented Analytic Kludge' at first use and give a reference.
  3. [V, Fig. 6] The axis label in the left panel for the (10^6 + 50) Msun system appears garbled as '104 7'; please correct the typesetting.
  4. [III, Eq. (16)] In the definition of N_cycle, the symbol F is used for the GW frequency but the notation is ambiguous because F appears both in the numerator and in the denominator; please define F_dot = dF/dt and write the integral accordingly.
  5. [IV, Eq. (24)] The Poisson equations for the environmental potentials involve the mass current J_H^i; please state explicitly how J_H^i is obtained from the Boyer-Lindquist currents in Eq. (8) via the coordinate transformation, since this is needed to reproduce the metric backreaction estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rotating-spike EMRI calculation is a forward model built from external inputs, with spin-dependent detectability emerging from the spike profile and Kerr geodesics rather than from fitted targets.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a forward model rather than a circular one. The rotating DM spike density is imported from Ferrer et al. (Ref. [51], with no author overlap), and the dynamical-friction force in Eq. (12) is the standard Chandrasekhar formula (Refs. [53, 56]) with ln Lambda ~ 3; neither is fitted to the dephasing, mismatch, or SNR results that form the paper's conclusions. The fits in Eqs. (9)-(10) are numerical representations of the density profile with fitting error below 0.1% and are not called predictions. Dephasing (Eq. (16)), mismatch (Eq. (17)) and SNR (Eq. (19)) are functions of the externally specified spike density and the Kerr/Teukolsky fluxes; the spin dependence of detectability follows from the spin-dependent input density and the different prograde/retrograde ISCO radii, not from parameters tuned to match the target claim. Self-citations, most notably Ref. [15] by two coauthors, supply methodology and comparison context, but the scaling relations in Eq. (9) are re-derived from a generated spike catalog and checked for robustness in the paper, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The admitted gravitational Magnus effect is an acknowledged modeling limitation deferred to future work, not a circular step. The environmental-metric PN calculation in Section IV is an independent consistency check. Hence no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new fundamental entities are proposed; the rotating dark matter spike is imported from Ferrer et al. [51]. The free parameters are the normalizing constants and fitted representations of that spike model. The axioms are standard astrophysical and gravitational assumptions, several of which are explicitly flagged by the authors as limitations.

free parameters (3)
  • Coulomb logarithm lnLambda = ~3 (assumed)
    Sets the overall normalization of the DF force in Eq. (12). The dephasing, mismatch, and SNR results scale roughly linearly with this value, and no uncertainty is propagated.
  • Spike polynomial fit coefficients A_i, B_j and orders n,m in Eq. (10) = Not listed in the paper
    Fit separately for each spin chi using Mathematica to the Ferrer et al. numerical spike. These fits are used in every subsequent computation, but the coefficients and orders are omitted, which impedes reproduction.
  • Spike scaling exponents in Eq. (9) = 1/3, -5/3, -2/3 for Mhalo, MBH, rs
    Determined by varying parameters in the numerical spike catalog, i.e., fitted rather than derived. The central density model depends on these exponents.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hernquist profile is the initial DM distribution (Eq. 1).
    The spike growth calculation starts from a Hernquist halo; an NFW or power-law initial profile could produce a different spike and different dephasing.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic growth of the central BH preserves the distribution function (action invariants, Section II).
    The Ferrer et al. spike model assumes slow, adiabatic BH growth; if growth is not adiabatic or the spike is later disrupted, the density profile used here does not apply.
  • domain assumption The DM spike is stationary, pressureless, non-interacting dust with particles on Kerr geodesics.
    Used for both the DF force and the PN metric backreaction estimate; ignores annihilation, self-interaction, baryonic feedback, and halo feedback.
  • domain assumption Dynamical friction is the isotropic Chandrasekhar formula, Eq. (12), with lnLambda about 3 and force anti-parallel to the secondary's velocity.
    Standard approximation; the rotating toroidal spike has an anisotropic velocity distribution, and the authors defer the gravitational Magnus effect.
  • domain assumption Vacuum Kerr Teukolsky fluxes drive GW emission during the inspiral.
    The authors use Teukolsky fluxes in the Kerr background and add DF as a separate dissipative term; this probe limit is checked with a PN metric estimate and found valid for MBH below 1e7 solar masses.
  • domain assumption LISA observability is judged by static PSD thresholds SNR greater than 20 and mismatch greater than 0.03.
    Simplified detection criterion; no full parameter estimation or detector response is included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme mass ratio inspirals in rotating dark matter spikes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XESJHZTC

@misc{pith2026250504697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme mass ratio inspirals in rotating dark matter spikes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XESJHZTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04697}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational wave (GW) signals from extreme mass ratio inspirals (EMRIs) are a key observational target for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). The waveforms may be affected by the astrophysical environment surrounding the central black hole (BH), and in particular by the surrounding dark matter (DM) distribution. In this work, we consider the effect of a rotating DM "spike" around a central Kerr BH, and assess its detectability with LISA. Using a fully relativistic model for the rotating spike, we investigate its effect on the inspiral and hence on the emitted GW signals. We compute dephasings and mismatches to quantify how the spin of the primary BH affects the binary dynamics and the gravitational waveform. We show that the modifications due to the spin of the primary BH improve the detection prospects of DM spikes with LISA, and must be taken into account for future parameter estimation studies. We also estimate within post-Newtonian theory how the environment affects the background metric, and show that this effect is mostly negligible for the systems we consider.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Density distribution of DM along the equatorial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Environmental pieces of the PN metric potentials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dephasing contributions for various systems, as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Inspiral trajectories of binary systems with and with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Number of cycles that accumulate as the secondary inspirals from a given starting frequency to the ISCO, for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dephasing due to DF as a function of GW frequency at the start of observation (two plots on the left) and as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Difference in the number of cycles between rotating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Mismatch between waveforms in vacuum and in a DM spike environment, as system evolves from a given initial GW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Mismatch between gravitational waveforms in vac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Mismatch as a function of scale radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Extreme mass-ratio inspiral within an ultralight scalar cloud I. Scalar radiation

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Scalar radiation from an EMRI in an ultralight scalar cloud is computed semi-analytically, showing dipole clouds decelerate and quadrupole clouds accelerate the inspiral, with up to about 100 rad dephasing after 18 months.

  2. Probing near-zone magnetic fields with extreme mass-ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A magnetized Schwarzschild background shifts EMRI orbital dynamics and GW waveforms, with B~10^9 G producing ~1.3 rad dephasing over one year for a 10^6 M_sun system.

  3. Probing Dark Matter Spike with Gravitational Waves from Early EMRIs in the Milky Way Center

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dark matter's drag on black holes spiraling into the Milky Way's central black hole would weaken low-frequency and strengthen high-frequency gravitational waves, a signal LISA or Taiji could potentially detect.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [51]

    Ferrer, A

    F. Ferrer, A. M. da Rosa, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083014 (2017), arXiv:1707.06302 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel.22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Living Rev. Rel.26, 1 (2023), arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Cardoso, S

    V. Cardoso, S. Hopper, C. F. B. Macedo, C. Palen- zuela, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D94, 084031 (2016), arXiv:1608.08637 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 96 references
  1. [8]

    Chakravarti, A

    K. Chakravarti, A. Reza, and L. G. Trombetta, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064032 (2024), arXiv:2405.10127 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. Panosso Macedo, and L. Al Sheikh, Phys. Rev. X11, 031003 (2021), arXiv:2004.06434 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung, K. Destounis, R. P. Macedo, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111103 (2022), arXiv:2111.05415 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. Panosso Macedo, and L. A. Sheikh, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 211102 (2022), arXiv:2105.03451 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Destounis, R

    K. Destounis, R. P. Macedo, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and J. L. Jaramillo, Phys. Rev. D104, 084091 (2021), arXiv:2107.09673 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Sarkar, M

    S. Sarkar, M. Rahman, and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104002 (2023), arXiv:2304.06829 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Speeney, A

    N. Speeney, A. Antonelli, V. Baibhav, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D106, 044027 (2022), arXiv:2204.12508 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    B. J. Kavanagh, D. A. Nichols, G. Bertone, and D. Gag- gero, Phys. Rev. D102, 083006 (2020), arXiv:2002.12811 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Speri, A

    L. Speri, A. Antonelli, L. Sberna, S. Babak, E. Barausse, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, (2022), arXiv:2207.10086 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D 105, L061501 (2022), arXiv:2109.00005 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Chakravarti, S

    K. Chakravarti, S. Acharya, S. Chakraborty, and S. Sarkar, (2025), arXiv:2503.19660 [gr-qc]

    2025

  14. [21]

    Gliorio, E

    S. Gliorio, E. Berti, A. Maselli, and N. Speeney, (2025), arXiv:2503.16649 [gr-qc]

    2025

  15. [22]

    Figueiredo, A

    E. Figueiredo, A. Maselli, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104033 (2023), arXiv:2303.08183 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Khalvati, A

    H. Khalvati, A. Santini, F. Duque, L. Speri, J. Gair, H. Yang, and R. Brito, (2024), arXiv:2410.17310 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al. (LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    K. G. Arunet al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel.25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    P. A. Seoaneet al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel.26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Maggioreet al

    M. Maggioreet al. (ET), JCAP03, 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    1912 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Punturo et al., Class

    M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  22. [29]

    Abac et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abac et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Reitze et al., Bull

    D. Reitze et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Poisson, A

    E. Poisson, A. Pound, and I. Vega, Living Rev. Rel.14, 7 (2011), arXiv:1102.0529 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [32]

    van de Meent, J

    M. van de Meent, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.840, 012022 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    Barack and A

    L. Barack and A. Pound, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 016904 (2019), arXiv:1805.10385 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Wardell, A

    B. Wardell, A. Pound, N. Warburton, J. Miller, L. Durkan, and A. Le Tiec, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 241402 (2023), arXiv:2112.12265 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Afshordi et al

    N. Afshordi et al. (LISA Consortium Waveform Working Group), (2023), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Albertini, R

    A. Albertini, R. Gamba, A. Nagar, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D109, 044022 (2024), arXiv:2310.13578 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Brito and S

    R. Brito and S. Shah, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084019 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 109902 (2024)], arXiv:2307.16093 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Kocsis, N

    B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D84, 024032 (2011), arXiv:1104.2322 [astro-ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Duque, C

    F. Duque, C. F. B. Macedo, R. Vicente, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121404 (2024), arXiv:2312.06767 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Hernquist, Astrophys

    L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J.356, 359 (1990)

    1990

  34. [41]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    1996 arXiv

  35. [42]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Moore, Nature370, 629 (1994)

    B. Moore, Nature370, 629 (1994)

    1994

  37. [44]

    R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack, Astrophys. J. Lett.427, L1 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9402004

    1994 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Marchesini, E

    D. Marchesini, E. D’Onghia, G. Chincarini, C. Firmani, P. Conconi, E. Molinari, and A. Zacchei, Astrophys. J. 575, 801 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0202075

    2002 arXiv

  39. [46]

    W. J. G. de Blok, Advances in Astronomy 2010, 10.1155/2010/789293 (2009)

    2009 doi

  40. [47]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 7 (2021), 18 arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1719 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

    1999 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Sadeghian, F

    L. Sadeghian, F. Ferrer, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063522 (2013), arXiv:1305.2619 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. L. Miller, (2025), arXiv:2503.02607 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  45. [53]

    Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

    S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J.97, 255 (1943)

    1943

  46. [54]

    Kim and W.-T

    H. Kim and W.-T. Kim, Astrophys. J.665, 432 (2007), arXiv:0705.0084 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Barausse and L

    E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D77, 104027 (2008), arXiv:0711.4558 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Vicente and V

    R. Vicente and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D105, 083008 (2022), arXiv:2201.08854 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    E. C. Ostriker, Astrophys. J.513, 252 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9810324

    1999

  50. [58]

    S.Mitra, S.Chakraborty, R.Vicente,and J.C.Feng,Phys. Rev. D110, 084012 (2024), arXiv:2312.06783 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 221101 (2013), arXiv:1301.5971 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044045 (2015), arXiv:1408.3534 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Speeney, E

    N. Speeney, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D109, 084068 (2024), arXiv:2401.00932 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Kary- das, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astron.7, 943 (2023), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

    2023

  55. [63]

    P. S. Cole, A. Coogan, B. J. Kavanagh, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D107, 083006 (2023), arXiv:2207.07576 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Chakraborty, G

    S. Chakraborty, G. Compère, and L. Machet, (2024), arXiv:2412.14831 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hu, R.-G

    L. Hu, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, JCAP 02, 067, arXiv:2312.14041 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Rahman, S

    M. Rahman, S. Kumar, and A. Bhattacharyya, JCAP01, 035, arXiv:2306.14971 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Coogan, G

    A. Coogan, G. Bertone, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, and D. A. Nichols, Phys. Rev. D105, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2108.04154 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bertone, A

    G. Bertone, A. R. A. C. Wierda, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, M. Volonteri, and N. Yoshida, (2024), arXiv:2404.08731 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Jones, L

    M. Jones, L. Brenneman, F. Civano, G. Lanzuisi, and S. Marchesi, (2020), arXiv:2008.08588 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    C. S. Reynolds, Space Sci. Rev. 183, 277 (2014), arXiv:1302.3260 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    C. Done, C. Jin, M. Middleton, and M. Ward, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.434, 1955 (2013), arXiv:1306.4786 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    C. S. Reynolds, Nature Astron. 3, 41 (2019), arXiv:1903.11704 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Biscoveanu, M

    S. Biscoveanu, M. Isi, S. Vitale, and V. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 171103 (2021), arXiv:2007.09156 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Dyson, T

    C. Dyson, T. F. M. Spieksma, R. Brito, M. van de Meent, and S. Dolan, (2025), arXiv:2501.09806 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    A. J. Chua, C. R. Galley, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 211101 (2019), arXiv:1811.05491 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    A. J. K. Chua, M. L. Katz, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 051102 (2021), arXiv:2008.06071 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, L. Speri, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, (2021), arXiv:2104.04582 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    M. L. Katz, L. Speri, A. J. K. Chua, C. E. A. Chapman- Bird, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, BlackHolePertur- bationToolkit/FastEMRIWaveforms: Frequency Domain Waveform Added! (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Black Hole Perturbation Toolkit, (bhptoolkit.org)

  73. [81]

    Becker, L

    N. Becker, L. Sagunski, L. Prinz, and S. Rastgoo, Phys. Rev. D105, 063029 (2022), arXiv:2112.09586 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Yue and Z

    X.-J. Yue and Z. Cao, Phys. Rev. D100, 043013 (2019), arXiv:1908.10241 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Z. Wang, T. Helfer, D. Traykova, K. Clough, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D110, 024009 (2024), arXiv:2402.07977 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Dyson, J

    C. Dyson, J. Redondo-Yuste, M. van de Meent, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104038 (2024), arXiv:2402.07981 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Sasaki and H

    M. Sasaki and H. Tagoshi, Living Rev. Rel.6, 6 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0306120

    2003 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Forseth, C

    E. Forseth, C. R. Evans, and S. Hopper, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064058 (2016), arXiv:1512.03051 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Wardell, N

    B. Wardell, N. Warburton, K. Cunningham, L. Durkan, B. Leather, Z. Nasipak, C. Kavanagh, A. Ottewill, M. Casals, T. Torres, J. Neef, and S. Barsanti, Teukolsky (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes (1985)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes (1985)

    1985

  81. [89]

    Glampedakis and D

    K. Glampedakis and D. Kennefick, Phys. Rev. D66, 044002 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0203086

    2002 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Kennefick, Phys

    D. Kennefick, Phys. Rev. D58, 064012 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9805102

    1998

  83. [91]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 105011 (2019), arXiv:1803.01944 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Andersson, F

    N. Andersson, F. Gittins, S. Yin, and R. Panosso Macedo, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 025016 (2023), arXiv:2209.05871 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Hergt and G

    S. Hergt and G. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D77, 104001 (2008), arXiv:0712.1515 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Damour, B

    T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D57, 885 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9708034

    1998 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  88. [96]

    R. S. Chandramouli, K. Prokup, E. Berti, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D111, 044026 (2025), arXiv:2410.06254 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.